Case law

Western Maryland RR. v. System Board of Adjustment

465 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 1979

N & W cars than was established with respect to Cumberland. … Second, the defendant union’s “dispute” with the plaintiff carriers fails to qualify as a dispute within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act itself. See Consolidated Rail Corporation v.

Gray v. Kern

143 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 13, 2016

At the time of this incident, the LGTCA clearly stated that “the liability of a local government may not exceed $200,000 3 per an individual claim.” Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-303(a)(l) (2007). … In the context of public official immunity, “[actual] malice is established by proof that the defendant-officer ‘intentionally performed an act without legal justification or excuse, but with an evil or rancorous motive influenced

Travers v. Bunn

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 4, 2025

In any event, “qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome an official’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

King v. Smith

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 9, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken in their individual capacities. (Defs.’ Mot. at 12). … “Under our precedents, officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Oates v. Sands

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 22, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants Sands and Waugh further assert that the qualified immunity doctrine protects them from suit because they did not violate any clearly established … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields a police officer from civil liability in a Section 1983 action if “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Whitehurst v. Warden

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified Immunity “To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional … A similar analysis in the qualified immunity context leads to the same result.”). The right also must be “clearly established” in the specific context of the case.

Phillips

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2026

Defendants argue that Phillips fails to state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, and that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Mot. at 16 n.3). … To avoid this result, individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because it was not clearly established that [Phillips’] speech . . . was a matter of public concern.”

Dodson

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2026

The statutory immunity defense is inapplicable here. Lastly, Defendants raise a qualified immunity defense, claiming that Dodson has failed to show that defendant’s conduct violated the law. ECF No. 19-1 at 13-14. … Because the Court finds that the undisputed facts entitle Defendants to summary judgment, the qualified immunity defense need not be reached or addressed. B.

Doali-Miller v. Supervalu, Inc.

855 F. Supp. 2d 510 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 11, 2012

Johnston’s medical group must be established at trial by the records custodian or “another qualified witness,” or by a Rule 902(11) certification. … Instead, it merely “provides that the qualified witness can establish the foundation without being called to testify.” Id.

Lewis v. Caraballo

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2022

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages in a § 1983 suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly … Thus, the factual disputes preclude granting Trooper Caraballo qualified immunity at this stage.

In Re Sabin Oral Polio Vaccine Products Liability Litigation

763 F. Supp. 811 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 18, 1991

Moreover, OPV is preferable to IPV because persons who are immunized with IPV can still be linked in the chain of infection; although immunized themselves against the disease, they can serve as carriers of the wild polio … Like other live virus vaccines (such as those used for smallpox and yellow fever), OPV stimulates immunity by inducing a mild infection in vaccinees.

Helsel v. Oves

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry | v. … See, e.g., Nelson, 2014 WL 6066053, at *7 (holding use of a VCT was objectively reasonable); Simpson, 2019 WL 1284101, at *6 (finding qualified immunity applied as it is not “clearly established” that use of VCT violates

Boyle v. Azzari

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 2023

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing duties within the scope of their employment from suit under § 1983 as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “At step two, the question is whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the officer's conduct.” Id.

Ademiluyi v. Albright

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2025

Lastly, the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to officials sued in their individual capacity and the doctrine of qualified immunity also protects government officials from liability when their “conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable person.”

Richburg v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 2025

Second, those defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 11-1 at 10–12. … Richburg did not directly respond to the arguments about qualified immunity.

Demesme v. Montgomery County Government

63 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 12, 1999

The record clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff was disciplined following the initial two incidents before finally being terminated following the third. … Because the Court finds that plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of discrimination, it need not resolve whether defendants Biggins and Norton would enjoy qualified immunity for the alleged constitutional violations

Cooper v. Rogers

788 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 30, 1991

Moreover, the record establishes beyond doubt that defendants have already gone to considerable lengths to provide Cooper with a kosher diet. … While these measures, of course, could not retroactively insulate defendants from liability for damages arising from pre-existing unconstitutional conduct, defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity against any

Nation. Bd. Certif. Occup. v. Amer. Occup. Therapy

24 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 1998

Consequently, AOTA's attempt to freeze the definition of "duly qualified" is misguided. … This action, however, is immune from antitrust liability, pursuant to Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v.

State of Maryland v. Wirtz

269 F. Supp. 826 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 13, 1967

Leaving aside for the moment the question of state sovereignty, I conclude that these activities are clearly within the power of Congress to regulate commerce. … “All I want to do is to establish equity in application of the bill. Let me tell why. I believe I can best explain it by giving an example.

Myers v. Town Of Colmar Manor

District Court, D. Maryland · May 4, 2020

So much for common law legislative immunity. Underlining the importance of local legislators’ unfettered discourse — and clearly "articulating the breadth of the privilege! … Furthermore, some States have deemed local officials to be protected only by qualified immunity. See, Lutz v.